Cycling UK Forum

fastpedaller wrote: ↑9 Dec 2024, 9:10am I was using our Daughter's home internet

If you send me a PM with her IP address, I will be able to advise further.

In the meantime, I have started a new thread to explain in more detail how and why this may happen and for further general discussion of the subject - viewtopic.php?t=163662, while we use this thread to deal with the specifics of fastpedaller's case.

Of the first posts by new members which the moderators have to review and approve or disapprove every day, on average typically several are from spammers, scammers or other malign actors, and are disapproved. Sometimes such posts are obvious, but sometimes they are not immediately identifiable as malign, and further investigation and checks are needed before disapproving them.

The vast majority of spam etc. comes from VPN and similar servers, most of which are outside the UK, but some UK VPN and proxy servers are used by spammers to give the appearance of their being in the UK.

We are currently updating and progressively increasing the number of IP addresses which are blocked from accessing the forum, to include more of those servers which are sources of spam (often persistently so). A consequence of this is that a member may find out of the blue that they are unable to access the forum. This is probably more likely to happen if trying to access the forum using a third party's wi-fi where the third party's ISP is one of those which is used by spammers, particularly if outside the UK. However, it could also happen with a UK ISP, especially if it is a relatively small ISP whose IP addresses are within a much larger range used by one of the VPN servers used by spammers.

If you find that you are blocked please contact the moderators/admin, either by using another IP address, e.g. turn it off if you are using a VPN, or by using the contact us page - memberlist.php?mode=contactadmin, which is not included in the block. We have had a couple of emails in recent weeks from guest users of the forum who have contacted us to report that they have been blocked, and they were quickly unblocked. The likelihood of guest users of the forum being blocked is higher than for members, because checks are made to minimise the risk of an existing member being affected by IP addresses being blocked. If it does happen it should generally be resolved pretty quickly.

Go to the relevant Ebay page, copy the Ebay URL at the top of the browser page (select the URL by clicking and dragging the cursor, or by placing the cursor in the URL field and press 'Ctrl A', then click 'Copy' or press 'Ctrl C'). Then go to your draft post for this forum, place the cursor where you want the link to appear, click on the button above the text box that looks like a pair of handcuffs, and then click 'Paste' or press 'Ctrl V'.

That will insert the URL in the post, surrounded by HTML code telling the forum software that it is a link. Usually the links will even work without the HTML code

An increasing number of IP addresses used by spammers and the like have been blocked. Most of these, but not all, are from servers outside Europe and are VPNs used by spammers to conceal themselves.

At the time was the iPad connected to the internet using third party wifi? If so, it's probably the third party's IP addresses that have been blocked, because they have also been used by spammers.

cycleruk wrote: ↑7 Dec 2024, 2:17pm Does anyone know the cable pull of GRX rear derailleurs ?

Ratio measured at 1.46 in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bh7QUWcSew. So 2.8mm cable pull will move the derailleur 1.46 x 2.8mm = 4.088mm

The distance between cassette sprockets for various speeds is given here - https://bike.bikegremlin.com/3573/bicyc ... standards/.

9 speed Shimano sprocket spacing is 4.35mm
10 speed Shimano sprocket spacing is 3.95mm.

Therefore with the Campagnolo 10 speed shifter and the GRX derailleur, per click the derailleur moves ~0.26mm nominally short for a 9 speed cassette (4.088mm - 4.35mm), i.e. ~2mm in total over all eight clicks.

Conversely, with the same shifter and derailleur, per click the derailleur moves ~0.14mm nominally too much for a 10 speed cassette (4.088mm - 3.95mm), i.e. ~1.24mm over all nine clicks.

Can anyone confirm how much float there is on a GRX400 derailleur, and is it significantly more than Shimano's 10 and 11 speed road derailleurs?

531colin wrote: ↑6 Dec 2024, 5:48pm people like Alex Singer were building low trail randonneur bikes in the late forties, when typical bikes had what would be considered today to be long fork offset and slack angles.

As I say, I don't know if it's correct. However, Dave Moulton has similarly written that low trail was common on bikes built in the 1930s through to the 1950s - http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/bl ... story.html, and that 73 degree head angles were considered ideal for road bikes - http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/bl ... ering.html. That seems to suggest that 73 HA was the norm, since typically enthusiast/club cyclists would only have had one bike, not a race bike and another with 'touring' geometry. If so, I could understand how French builders of randonneur frames might have struggled to get lugs for shallower head angles, given that they were probably a small segment of the market.

AndyK wrote: ↑6 Dec 2024, 2:18pm My wild guess is that the council copped out at the time of construction, perhaps under pressure from the church/school/community centre, and left the priorities ambiguous. Look at this 2023 Streetview: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TLVURQFrbGbQr6Uw8 - the dashed centre line of the cycle track mysteriously vanishes as it crosses the entrance. At other entrances the priorities are made much clearer.

The blogger's article highlights that the red surfaces across the various side street entrances etc. are all like that, with the cycleway markings and pedestrian/cycleway separation markings not continuing over the red surfaces - https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com ... -city.html

At the junction with Chester Street we immediately see the consistent approach taken with side road treatments and accesses with the use of continuous treatments (above) which carry the cycle track and footway across the side street which gives visual priority to walking, wheeling and cycling and which reinforces the Highway Code hierarchy which gives those moving ahead priority (Rules H2 and H3). My message to designers is that this should be your default approach, unless location conditions dictate otherwise.

.
Interesting to compare Christ the King's new markings with those of Bablake School, albeit that this is not part of the cycleway (which is on the other side of the road), but the point remains that the give way markings at Bablake School make it clear pedestrians have priority.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4125953 ... FQAw%3D%3D

I think it would be worth contacting the author of that blog I mentioned - he seems to be well informed about good design of cycleways, and this alteration to the cycleway was made after his visit. I suspect he would be able to give you some good pointers and insight.

AndyK wrote: ↑6 Dec 2024, 10:24am I think there would need to be a separate Traffic Regulation Order to add those markings. So you could try an FOI request for that TRO together with any responses received when it went to consultation. If there was no TRO, the markings may not be legal. It does look suspiciously like the CTK people had them painted.

Not listed on the Coventry Council website, not even as an experimental order. The TROs for the cycleway generally are also not listed, but I presume were made longer ago, whereas the changes in front of the Christ the King entrance are recent.

https://www.coventry.gov.uk/roads-highw ... n-orders/2

Bike Ribbon was a common choice before Cinelli's cork tape started the trend of more cushioned tape. The brand appears still to be in existence, and the 'Professional' model tape looks similar to the product of the 80s and 90s. It looks like it is easier to find and buy on the Continent than in the UK.

https://www.bikeribbon.com/product/professional/

Ged117 wrote: ↑5 Dec 2024, 2:50pm I've found a NOS DH 3N71 for a good price, and I plan to build it into a new wheel for my '75 Raleigh Competition which I use as an all-rounder given the frame's generous tire clearance which leaves enough room for 35mm tires and fenders. Since the hub has never been used, I figure the bearings are as set from the factory and overly tight. Advice is to back off the cone slightly, and set it so that there is no play when fixed to the bike. Given the years since manufacture, would it be prudent to replace the grease in the serviceable side of the hub?

Yes. There has been the odd previous thread explaining how to do so, e.g.:

viewtopic.php?t=117634

viewtopic.php?t=149187

I thought this article about low trail was interesting - https://analogcycles.com/pages/debunking-low-trail, especially the proposed explanation of why René Herse and other French builders chose to use low trail for their touring/randonneur bikes. I don't know if it's correct, but it's grist to the mill of the discussion.

Brucey wrote: ↑5 Dec 2024, 2:50pm the only Kore brakes I have seen have been 'wide arm' design. At best, this design responds least well to a lowered straddle cable; in fact if the cable mountings are at boss height the straddle can make no real difference at all to the brake. This makes the use of levers with the highest MA pretty much mandatory if you want a respectable overall system MA.

Do any of the current non-brifter levers on the market have that sort of high mechanical advantage, e.g. Tektro, TRP or Dia Compe (aero or non-aero models)?

Rhothgar wrote: ↑4 Dec 2024, 11:33pm So if I reading you correctly, the MC70's may well work well with the modern BL-R400's?

BL-R400 are not modern - the design is something like 30 years old, and they are consequently SSLR, not SLR or NSSLR (the hoods on mine have 'Super SLR' written on the side.

As for whether they will work with BR-MC70s, that combination was what I used for many years on my touring bike, and I found them just fine.

Hopefully other more knowledgeable posters can give you better advice than me, but the following occur to me:

1.There is a blog about the cycleway and the design features here - https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com ... -city.html, including a photograph of that entrance before the new markings were installed - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... 59_HDR.jpg. And this shows it before the installation of the cycleway - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4222068 ... FQAw%3D%3D

I suggest you contact that blogger, because he seems knowledgeable and may be able to advise you.

2. They are apparently trying to give priority to vehicles entering (and exiting) what I presume are private premises. The reply to your complaint specifically refers to 'concerned local stakeholders regarding how the access to Christ the King operated'. Maybe they worded that poorly and there are also concerns about egress, although my guess is that people are complaining that cars in the road waiting for a gap between passing pedestrians and cyclists in order to turn into the site, are blocking the road.

On that note, as I see it what the council is doing directly conflicts with Highway Code Rule 170 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... 159-to-203) and Rules H2 and H3 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... troduction). The rules require vehicles intending to turn into a side road* to give way not only to pedestrians already crossing the side road, but also pedestrians 'waiting to cross'. The HC seems clearer to me about the priority that should be given to pedestrians in these circumstances, but I do not see that it is viable or safe to have different priority for cyclists, when both pedestrians and cyclists are travelling on parallel paths.

* And it is not even a side road, it's the entrance to private premises.

I think the fact that pedestrians use a parallel path and the council is similarly trying to remove their priority, is an important angle of attack. HC Rules 170, H2 and H3 are unambiguous about pedestrian priority, and if the council cannot do it to pedestrians, then they will have to concede the same for cyclists.

Incidentally, we have had a couple of threads which have touched on the issue of cyclists' priority at road junctions under the new HC - viewtopic.php?t=154978 and viewtopic.php?t=155893.

It seems to me that the council are trying to reverse the effect in the HC of Rules 170, H2 and H3. I suspect they probably cannot do that lawfully using the markings they have installed, and with good reason because it creates confusion and danger to pedestrians and cyclists if vehicle drivers wrongly believe they have priority and do not need to give way contrary to what the HC says. My guess is that the correct and lawful way to give vehicles priority in this situation would be to install traffic lights and a toucan crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, but I also guess that there is negligible chance of the council and the owners of Christ the King being able/allowed to install traffic lights.

3. Like Gaz, I think the argument that what they have done is consistent with the rest of the cycleway is highly questionable. Firstly Christ the King are presumably private premises. It does not look to me like any other private premises with parking accessed by crossing the cycleway and pavement have such markings, whether they be private residential premises or otherwise, e.g.

Access to car parking for flats - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4126864 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Bablake and King Henry VIII School - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4283401 ... FQAw%3D%3D

As for side roads (not access to private premises), there are others in addition to the one found by Gaz where there are give way signs/markings for traffic exiting a side road and crossing the cycleway and pavement. And to state the obvious, for traffic turning into the side roads, HC Rules 170, H2 and H3 apply.

Hollyfast Rd - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.423445, ... FQAw%3D%3D

Browett Rd - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4185396 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Stanier Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4128831 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Pake's Croft (give way marking for cyclists exiting a side road!) - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4180341 ... FQAw%3D%3D

And where there are no signs/markings, are they really suggesting that the special raised surface and kerbing should/may be interpreted by drivers as giving them priority both exiting and entering side roads like those below?

Elmwood Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4209245 ... FQAw%3D%3D

Ashwood Ave - https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4202461 ... shwood Ave

I suspect that the cantilever boss spacing on your fork is the older narrower standard (around 60mm-65mm or so), not the wider standard of ~75mm or more that replaced it when V brakes became common.

Modern V brakes, mini Vs and modern cantilevers are designed for the wider boss spacing, and may not work well on narrow spaced bosses. The threaded mount brake blocks/cartridges of V brakes etc. have only limited scope to accommodate variation in the boss spacing by swapping the positions of thin and thick CPS washers.

The CX50 (and discontinued CX70) brakes are unusual in that they are designed to fit a wide range of boss spacings by using one of three different length spacers and bolts, diagram here - https://www.sjscycles.com/Drawings/Shim ... ch_Doc.pdf and chart showing the various boss spacing, rim width and spacer combinations on page 17 here - https://si.shimano.com/en/pdfs/dm/RCBR0 ... 00-ENG.pdf.

Although CX50 brakes are still available, what many retailers are selling is a package containing only one or two of the three different sized spacers and bolts, and a lot of them do not even make it clear on their website if only one or two sizes are included. The CX50 also uses a moulded pad specific to that brake model (whereas the CX70 came with cartridge holders which take the universal Shimano standard road pattern inserts), although we have discussed the possibility that other brand cartridge holders might fit here - viewtopic.php?t=83367.

If the boss spacing of your fork is narrow, I would not buy any modern brake, including a mini V, until I was confident it would work with that boss spacing and whatever the rim width is, i.e. I would ideally want confirmation from someone on the forum who had that brake fitted to narrow spaced bosses. The exception to that would be a CX50 with small spacers/bolts, but personally I would not want to be locked into using the Shimano moulded pads for that brake. The alternative would be to buy a used 1980s/90s non-low profile cantilever brake designed for the narrower spacing.

Finally,

- SLR cable is not compressionless
- 287V levers are designed for full size V brakes, and are not a good design at that.
- I've not used 287E levers, but I am sceptical that they are better than BR R600 levers.
- Fork crown mounted cable hangers will generally reduce judder compared with headset mounted hangers